what implications (if any) would this brain research have for Oism?

For a long time, neurologists have known that electrically stimulating certain portions of a person's brain will cause that person to make particular physical motions (that the experimental subject correctly recognizes as unwilled by him/herself).

However -- according toa recent article in Scientific American's publication MIND , neurologists have now discovered that electrically stimulating certain other portions of a human brain has another, and more disturbing result -- it causes the person to *want* to perform particular physical actions. Apparently, it forces the person to will those actions -- by acting upon the brain cells involved in willing a particular physical action.

If a few amperes of electric current, properly placed. can force a person to actually *want* to perform whatever action the guy with the ON/OFF switch has in mind -- what happens to free will? (What happens to John Galt if Floyd Ferris obtains, and perfects, this device?)

Post 1

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 1:05pm

Objectivism is a philosophy It is a system based upon axiomatic truths, wide based universals, and truths about human nature.

Concrete scientific discoveries cannot contradict axiomatic truths. In so far as scientific discoveries apply to man, they simply further elucidate his nature. Some "Objectivist" doctrines might have a hard time dealing with certain discoveries. For instance, Leonard Peikoff continues to adhere to Rand's intellectualist theory of human sexuality. He asserts that homosexuality, for instance, is the result of a child's "premises." A discovery that homosexuality is organically caused would be difficult for that theory. But it is already doubtful whether Rand's theory of sexuality is true. And it is certainly not central to or essential to her philosophy.

We already know that man is a physical being, that the mind is a relation between a man's functioning nervous system and his environment, that the nervous system is electrochemical in nature. Since some parts of our brain are already known to influence other parts of our brain electrochemically, it is not at all surprising that direct stimulation of the brain by electrodes will have some certain effects. One can already induce certain effects by the use of drugs. Whether one uses wires or neurotransmitter analogs to effect changes in mental states is of no essential difference.

Freedom of the will is a moral concept. You are your body. So long as your body is properly developed, relatively intact, healthy and not under an external influence such as a drug like truth serum, we call your actions free. Would it be strange to consider that if some outside party were to violate the integrity of your body he might be said to interfere with your free will? Is it so bizarre to contemplate that since you are an electrochemical mechanism, you might be interfered with electrochemically?

No scientific discovery will change what human nature is. Men might be changed into something else. Perhaps. If they were no longer humans, then they wouldn't have human natures. They would have some other sort of nature. In so far as Objectivism is a philosophy which holds that men are integrated units of body and soul subject to the laws of nature, this discovery simply lends Objectivism, as opposed to, say, idealism, further support. Is that a surprise?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/18, 5:58pm)

Post 2

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 1:29pm

Ted,

Well said. Any such discoveries only add to our knowledge. I certainly have to give credence to the article. Our youngest cat has a peculiar affectation. Pet him near his rump for more than a second, and he instantly begins licking himself. Stop, and he stops. He cannot not respond in this way. Our vet said this is quite a common type of behavior (a little neurotic?).

jt

Post 3

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 2:13pm

No surprise -- pretty much what I expected.

Post 4

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 2:15pm

The study identifies some cortical circuits that, when activated, correlate with conscious intention and agency. Perhaps this result favors supervenience physicalism over some Objectivists' non-physicalist claims predicated on the view that free will is simply non-physical.

Jordan

Post 5

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 2:20pm

Jordan, can you restate that a little more clearly? I am not quite sure what you are saying and to whom you are refering. I have read Jaegwon Kim. I am not sure who these non-physical Objectivists are, or what they believe. I am fairly certain that "you are your body" is orthodox.

Kate, if that is what you expected, is it not what you wanted?

Post 6

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 4:50pm

Hi Ted,

Over the years I've conversed with Objectivists or read their views about whether existence is always and only physical. I recall several Objectivists viewing conciousness/free-will as non-physical, thus rejecting "hard" physicalism. A cursory search through my thread history brings up one thread between me and Nathan Hawking on the subject. (Not sure if he self-identified as an Objectivist.) I know there were others (Reginald Firehammer maybe?) although I'm not sure they were on RoR. That's difficult to figure out without use of an intranet search function. Maybe we should just ask here whether Objectivists accept that existence is always and only physical, or perhaps in particular, whether the "mind" or "conciousness" or "free will" are reducible, supervenes on, or equates strictly with the physical.

Jordan

Post 7

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:51pm

My understanding is that Firehammer does not consider himself an Objectivist. I have never interacted with him.

Rand didn't really go in to the matter deeply. I would simply say that everything that exists exists either as a body or in relation to a body at some remove. Consciousness, for example, is not a body, but a harmonic relation between bodies, by which the conscious subject assimilates the form of the objects of his consciousness without assimilating their substance. (That's a scholastic view.)

Will is the ability to act in subdeterminative circumstances. (My definition.) For example, a ball at the top of a flight of steps going down a hill will either stay at rest or roll down the hill as determined by the appropriate factors of mass, location, momentum and obstacles. The ball's action is determined. But a man sitting at the top of the same flight of stairs can walk down the steps, use the grass on either side, stay where he his or turn around and walk the other way, and there is nothing external to him determining that he will take any of those alternatives - nevertheless he acts. Volition is the faculty that allows us to act when circumstances don't determine our actions. Which path we choose depends on our bodies because we are our bodies.

To say that since we are physical we are not free is to beg the question of what freedom is. Does freedom require that we not be ourselves? No, it just requires that we have a choice (an alternative) and that we not be constrained by external factors. Ultimately, the will supervenes on the physical, from which consciousness emerges as a harmonic relation. Free will is not a metaphysical concept, so much as a moral concept. To act freely is not to act without a cause, it is to act without external determination. People who think that freedom of the will requires a lack of physical cause are simply saying that they deny that they are their own bodies.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/18, 5:55pm)

Post 8

Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 5:04am

Ted,

To act freely is not to act without a cause, it is to act without external determination. People who think that freedom of the will requires a lack of physical cause are simply saying that they deny that they are their own bodies.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then what you are saying means that we should stop calling it free will and start calling it personal will.

Ed
[thinks that consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/19, 5:06am)

Post 9

Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 8:54am

Free will is a properly useful moral and especially legal concept. People routinely aver that they do things of their own free will, meaning that they are not being coerced by such things as threats of blackmail. The term free will has a place. Personal will is simply redundant. What would impersonal will be?

Post 10

Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 9:43am

Kate,

I do believe that brain science will have an important effect on Objectivism as an extended system of knowledge. The main trunks of the philosophy will remain mostly unaffected, however.

Brain science will more fully elucidate the how of implementing Rand's philosophy. It will allow us to be more fully cognizant of our evolutionary and developmental heritage. That will allow us to focus on big issues when we choose to swim upstream against said evolutionary and developmental heritage.

Rand's elucidation of a morality of life is unassailable. What will change is an outmoded insistence on rendering certain aspects of human nature unimportant when deciding on the best way to learn or on what is in our self-interest. Learning more about human beings is a vital part of reintroducing measurements within the Objectivist system.

In your example of the brain probe stimulation, it just means that I won't let anyone near my brain with electrical probes :-).

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 11/19, 9:46am)

Post 11

Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 10:50am

Ed,

Aha! I was pretty sure you argued for non-physical existence. Would you happen to remember threads where this was discussed?

Ted,

Impersonal will is what telemarketers have.

Jordan

Post 12

Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 11:29am

Impersonal will is what telemarketers have.
................

Heh, heh... had to sanction for that one... ;-)

Post 13

Friday, November 20, 2009 - 5:09am

Robert,

I sanctioned your sanction (but not what was sanctioned). Call it impersonal valuation, if you must.

Ed

Post 14

Friday, November 20, 2009 - 5:16am

Here you go, Jordan:

Me, arguing (quite successfully, I might add) for a distinction between consciousness and existence.

Note: Of course it helps that I was refuting perhaps the greatest, materialist philosopher of mind of the 20th Century ...

Ed

Post 15

Friday, November 20, 2009 - 12:21pm

Thanks for the link, Ed.

Jordan

Post 16

Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 1:02am

I didn't want one or another particular answer -- other than wanting to know what others here thought, and why.

Post 17

Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 6:01pm